Bribe demands for processing road-construction bills were held proved against two public servants. The High Court upheld their convictions under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, confirmed the sentences and dismissed both appeals.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020 With
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 280 of 2020
Shambhu Ram, aged about 62 years, son of Late Ramadhar Ram, resident of Village –Siri, P.O. –Gori, P.S. –Karagahar, District –Rohtas (Bihar)
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau (Vigilance).
..... Respondent
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 294 of 2020
Onkar Prasad Gupta, aged about 65 years, son of Late Harbansh Lal, Resident of Village –Daud Nagar, P.O. & P.S. – Daud Nagar, District –Aurangabad (Bihar). At present – resident of Flat No. 545, Ara Garden Residences, Near Jagdeo Path, P.S. –Hawai Adda, P.O. –GPO, District –Patna (Bihar).
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi (Jharkhand)
..... Respondent
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 25.02.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge, A.C.B, Ranchi in Vigilance (Spl.) Case No. 03 of 2008]
For the Appellant : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate For the A.C.B. : Mrs. Niki Sinha, Spl. P.P. ….. P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
2
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
By the Court: - Heard the parties through video
conferencing.
3 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020 With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
Rs.1,50,000/- with default clause of undergoing Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant-convict – Onkar Prasad Gupta has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.1,50,000/- with default clause of undergoing Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, if the fine amount is not paid and it has also been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
4
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
written complaint submitted by the complainant (P.W.2), hence on the basis of the report submitted by Sri Prabhu Dayal, FIR of this case has been registered. The investigation of this case was entrusted to the P.W.7 –Sunil Rojer Fransis Bedia. A trap was successfully conducted on 14.03.2008. Both the appellant-convicts were caught red handed after accepting the bribe amount of Rs.41,000/- by the appellant-convict – Shambhu Ram and Rs.1,00,000/- by the appellant-convict – Onkar Prasad Gupta, at different places. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was submitted against the appellantconvicts. Separate charges for the said offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against both the appellantconvicts to which they pleaded not guilty and thus were put to trial.
5
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
Simdega district. He completed the part of the work and part of the work was remaining to be done. When the P.W.2 requested to prepare the bill for the work he has done, the appellant-convict –Onkar Prasad Gupta (J.E.) demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe and the appellant-convict –Shambhu Ram (S.D.O.) demanded Rs.41,000/- as bribe. Earlier also the P.W.2 gave them some money. As the P.W.2 was not intending to give money, hence he complained to the Vigilance Bureau (Now renamed as Anticorruption Bureau). On being proved by him, the complaint submitted by him has been marked Ext.-12. He has further stated about S.I. –Prabhu Dayal being sent by the S.P. to Simdega for verification of his complaint. On 13.03.2008, on the same day when he made the complaint to the Vigilance Bureau, Prabhu Dayal went with him and the P.W.2 and Prabhu Dayal reached the R.E. Office at Simdega at about 04:00 P.M. P.W.2 met SDO, Shambhu Ram and requested him to prepare his bill at which Shambhu Ram told him to pay the remaining bribe amount of Rs.41,000/- and said that only after that the bill will be prepared. From there, the P.W.2 went to his office situated at Simdega along with Prabhu Dayal. At about 05:00-05:30 P.M., the J.E., Onkar Prasad Gupta came to the office of P.W.2. P.W.2 also requested Onkar Prasad Gupta for his bill at which Onkar Prasad Gupta told that until Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe is not paid by the P.W.2, he will not prepare the bill. All the conversations were heard
6
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
by Prabhu Dayal. Prabhu Dayal intimated to the P.W.2 at 10:00 P.M. on that day that his case has been registered and to arrange Rs.1,41,000/- and to come with that amount to Vigilance Office at Ranchi. P.W.2 reached the Vigilance Office with Rs.1,41,000/-. Prabhu Dayal introduced the P.W.2 with eight members of the team. P.W.2 has stated in detail about the pre-trap preparations. He has further stated that the trap team reached Simdega between 12:30 -01:00 P.M. P.W.2 talked to the appellant-convicts over phone separately and intimated them that he has arranged the money and enquired that as to where, he has to come. They told that they will meet the P.W.2 at about 04:00 P.M. The trap team came to the office of P.W.2 between 03:00-03:30 P.M. Between 04:00-04:30 P.M. SDO, Shambhu Ram came to the office of P.W.2. At that time, the P.W.2 was sitting in his office. P.W.2 handed over Rs.41,000/which was wrapped in a paper and which was smeared with phenolphthalein. After giving the money, the P.W.2 gave the signal. Two persons of the Vigilance came inside and caught hold of the left and right hand of Shambhu Ram respectively. The other members of the team also arrived there. From Shambhu Ram, Rs.41,000/- was recovered in front of the P.W.2 consisting of 41 currency notes of Rs.1,000/denominations each. The numbers of all the notes were tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memorandum. Upon a search being conducted, from the bag of the S.D.O.
7 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
Rs.34,000/- was seized. The seizure list was prepared. Upon the hands of the S.D.O. being washed in the solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. In the meantime, the manager of the P.W.2 came and informed the P.W.2 that J.E. does not want to take money in front of the S.D.O., hence he has called the P.W.2 to his office. The P.W.2 along with Prabhu Dayal went to the office of the J.E., Onkar Prasad Gupta and met him. Onkar Prasad Gupta enquired, as to whether the P.W.2 has brought the money, at which the P.W.2 answered in affirmative. Then, Onkar Prasad Gupta told that he will come down to the balcony/corridor. After coming down, the P.W.2 handed over Rs.1,00,000/- which was wrapped in a paper. Upon receiving the money, the personnel of Vigilance caught hold of his hands separately. Onkar Prasad Gupta was taken to the office of the Executive. The money was seized from Onkar Prasad Gupta. The notes were recovered from the pocket of Onkar Prasad Gupta. P.W.2 has stated about the post-trap formalities in detail also including that upon the hands of the appellant-convict –Onkar Prasad Gupta being washed with the solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. In his cross-examination, the P.W.2 has stated that Memon Ekka is his cousin sister and Enos Ekka is the husband of Memon Ekka. He further stated that it is a fact that the work agreement was made between his company, Ekka Construction Private Ltd. and the Executive Engineer, Rural
8
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
Works. In para-77 of his cross-examination, the P.W.2 has stated that on 14.03.2008, he did not make any phone calls to either of the appellant-convicts rather the appellant-convicts called the P.W.2 over phone. He denied the suggestion that on 13.03.2008, both the appellant-convicts had gone to a place 45 kilometre away where NAREGA work was going on. He also denied the suggestion that on 10.03.2008, he threatened Onkar Prasad Gupta, that unless his bill is passed by Onkar Prasad Gupta, then he will falsely implicate him in a false Vigilance case. He then submitted that when the trap of Onkar Prasad Gupta was made, the other appellant-convict was in the vehicle outside the Collectorate. He also denied the suggestion that he being the Sala (brother-in-law) of the MLA, wanted that his forged bills be passed and when the appellant-convicts refused to pass the bills, he has implicated them in a false case.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the crossexamination of the P.W.2, no specific question was asked to him about his testimony in his examination in chief regarding the demand of money by the co-appellant-convicts, acceptance of the bribe money by the from the P.W.2 and recovery of the said amount. Thus the testimony of the P.W.2 in this respect has remained unchallenged and is to be accepted.
9
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
made in the office of Vigilance Bureau on 14.03.2008 from 05:30 onwards in detail. He further stated that they reached the Simdega Bus Stand at 12:30 P.M. The inspector of Police – Prabhu Dayal and the complainant were in the office of Ekka Construction Private Ltd. On getting the information, P.W.1 caught hold of the left hand of the appellant-convict-Shambhu Ram and Mahesh Prasad Singh caught hold of his right hand. Upon search being conducted; from the fist of Shambhu Ram, Rs.41,000/- was recovered. On the numbers of the notes being compared with the numbers of the notes and denominations mentioned in G.C. Notes Memorandum, the same tallied. Apart from that, from the bag of Shambhu Ram, Rs.34,000/was recovered. He proved the various documents and also stated about the post-trap formalities. P.W.1 further deposed that one employee of Ekka Construction namely Dilip Mahto informed that J.E., R.E.O –Onkar Prasad Gupta is not intending to take bribe in front of Shambhu Ram, S.D.O and he has called them to the Collectorate to take money. The trap team, complainant and others went there. After some time, Prabhu Dayal gave a signal by wiping his face by handkerchief. P.W.1 and Mahesh Prasad Singh saw Onkar Prasad Gupta counting notes with both the hands and upon seeing the P.W.1 and others, he put the money in his left pocket. P.W.1 caught hold of the left hand of the Onkar Prasad Gupta and Mahesh Prasad Singh caught hold of his right
10
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
hand. In presence of two independent witnesses, Anil Ranjan and Ranjit Singh, the I.O. gave his search and search of the appellant-convict was taken. From the left pocket of his full pant, 100 notes of Rs.1,000/- denominations each were recovered. The numbers of the notes tallied with the numbers of the notes mentioned in the G.C. Notes Memorandum. The fingers of both the hands of the appellant-convict were washed with the Sodium Carbonate Solution separately and colour of both the solutions turned pink. He also proved various documents which have been marked Exhibits. He also identified the notes which were recovered from the appellantconvicts. He further stated that upon search being made from the house of J.E. –Onkar Prasad Gupta, Rs.25,000/- was seized. In para-32 & 34, he has stated that he has not seen the complainant giving money and the appellant-convicts receiving money.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.1 in respect of his testimony in his examination in chief regarding the recovery of the tainted money from both the appellant-convicts from separate places or about the presence of the appellant-convict- Shambhu Ram and his being apprehended from the office of Ekka Construction. there is no crossSimilarly absolutely examination of the P.W.1 regarding the testimony that during the course of verification the appellant-convict Onkar Prasad
11
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
Gupta visited his office on 13.03.2008 between 5.00-5.30 p.m.. Thus the said portion of the testimony of the P.W.1 has remained unchallenged and is to be accepted.
12
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
appellant-convict -Onkar Prasad Gupta. Upon getting the predetermined signal from the verifying officer, all the members of the trap team reached the office of the appellant-convict situated on the second floor of the Collectorate of Simdega. P.W.3 saw that the hands of Onkar Prasad Gupta were held by the two constables of the trap team. Upon search being made in presence of two independent witnesses, Anil Ranjan Bara and Ranjit Singh, Rs.1,00,000/- kept in the left pocket of the full pant of the appellant-convict- Onkar Prasad Gupta, each of which were notes of Rs.1,000/- denominations; were seized. Upon the numbers of the seized notes being compared with the numbers mentioned in the G.C. Note Memorandum, the same tallied. After that the fingers of the appellant-convict were washed with Sodium Carbonate Solution and the colour of the Solution turned pink. In his cross-examination, the P.W.3 has stated that the first place of occurrence which is the office of Ekka Construction is situated at a distance of 30 feet towards east of the main road in Maharaja Complex. In para11, he has stated that at both the places of occurrence, P.W.3 has not heard the conversation between the P.W.2 and the appellant-convicts and he has also not seen the giving and taking of the bribe between the P.W.2 and the appellantconvicts.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.3 in respect of his testimony in
13 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020 With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
his examination in chief regarding the recovery of the tainted money from both the appellant-convicts from separate places or about the presence of the appellant-convict- Shambhu Ram and his being apprehended from the office of Ekka Construction. Thus the said portion of the testimony of the P.W.1 has remained unchallenged and is to be accepted.
14
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
Prasad Gupta is not intending to take bribe in presence of S.D.O., Shambhu Ram, hence he has called them to R.E.O. Office at the Collectorate. P.W.2 was sent with Rs.1,00,000/- to Onkar Prasad Gupta. After getting the signal P.W.5 and others of the trap team reached there and near the toilet, beside the office of the appellant-convict- Onkar Prasad Gupta, situated on the second floor, the appellant-convict- Onkar Prasad Gupta was caught red handed with the bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. When the P.W.5 reached there, he saw the constables catching hold of both the hands of the said appellant-convict. He further stated that the constables stated that the said appellant-convict put the money on his left side back pocket of full pant; upon seeing the constables. Search of Onkar Prasad Gupta was made and Rs.1,00,000/- was recovered from the left pocket of his full pant. He has also stated that both the hands of Onkar Prasad Gupta upon being washed with the Sodium Carbonate Solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. Since, Onkar Prasad Gupta was not putting on any under wear, hence his pant could not be washed by removing it. The appellant-convict was arrested from the residence of Onkar Prasad Gupta, cash of Rs.25,000/and measurement book relating to the work of the complainant (P.W.2) were seized. In para-8 of his crossexamination, he has stated that he has not heard any conversation between the P.W.2 and the appellant-convicts
15
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
and he has not seen the appellant-convicts demanding bribe nor he has seen them taking any bribe.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.5 in respect of his testimony in his examination in chief regarding the recovery of the tainted money from both the appellant-convicts from separate places or about the presence of the appellant-convict- Shambhu Ram and his being apprehended from the office of Ekka Construction. Thus the said portion of the testimony of the P.W.5 has remained unchallenged and is to be accepted.
16 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
occurrence which is at a distance of half kilometre at Simdega Collectorate. After giving and taking of money, upon receiving the signal, when P.W.7 reached there, he saw P.W.1 catching hold of the left hand and Mahesh catching hold of the right hand of Onkar Prasad Gupta. In presence of the independent witnesses, Ranjit Singh and Anil Ranjan Bara, search of Onkar Prasad Gupta was made and from his left full pant pocket, Rs.1,00,000/- consisting of 100 notes of Rs.1,000/denominations were recovered. Upon comparing of the notes, the numbers of the notes tallied. P.W.7 further stated that upon search of the house of the appellant-convict –Onkar Prasad Gupta, two M.B. Books and Rs.25,000/- were recovered. In his cross-examination, in para-22, he has stated that he has not heard any conversation between the appellantconvicts and the P.W.2 and in front of him, the appellantconvicts did not demand any money from the P.W.2 nor appellant-convicts took any money in front of him. He sent the solution with which the hands of the appellant-convicts were washed after 20 days of the trap. He further stated that in the process of preparing the G.C. Notes Memorandum, the numbers of the five notes did not tally and after 10-12 days, P.W.7 submitted an application in the court and made the correction of the notes.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.7 in respect of his testimony in
17 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020 With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
his examination in chief regarding the recovery of the tainted money from both the appellant-convicts from separate places or about the presence of the appellant-convict- Shambhu Ram and his being apprehended from the office of Ekka Construction. Thus the said portion of the testimony of the P.W.7 has remained unchallenged and is to be accepted.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
being washed with Sodium Carbonate Solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. In para-10 of his cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that he has not heard any conversation between the appellant-convict and the P.W.2. He further stated that he has not seen both the accused persons demanding bribe from the P.W.2. or the P.W.2 giving the bribe.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.8 in respect of his testimony in his examination in chief regarding the recovery of the tainted money from both the appellant-convicts from separate places. Thus the said portion of the testimony of the P.W.8 has remained unchallenged and is to be accepted.
19
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
numbers mentioned in the G.C. Notes Memorandum earlier and the numbers tallied. He has also stated that upon the hands of the appellant-convict being washed with Sodium Carbonate Solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. Upon search, from the appellant-convict –Shambhu Ram, additional Rs.34,000/- was also seized. For trap of the appellant-convict –Onkar Prasad Gupta, a proceeding was done at Collectorate of Simdega. There also, on signal being received, two members of the trap team caught hold of the hands of Onkar Prasad Gupta and upon search being made from the pocket of the full pant, Rs.1,00,000/- was recovered. The hands of the Onkar Prasad Gupta being washed with the Sodium Carbonate Solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. In his cross-examination, the P.W.9 has stated that he entered inside Ekka Construction, 5-7 minutes after getting the signal. In para-11, he has stated that he has not heard the conversation between Onkar Prasad Gupta and the P.W.2 and he has also not seen giving and taking of bribe by the appellant-convicts nor receiving the same.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.9 in respect of his testimony in his examination in chief regarding the recovery of the tainted money from both the appellant-convicts from separate places. Thus the said portion of the testimony of the P.W.9 has remained unchallenged and is to be accepted.
20
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
has identified his signature on the seizure list which were marked Exhibits. He has further stated that on 14.03.2008 at about 04:00 P.M., he came to know that the vigilance Bureau team is raiding the office of Ekka Construction, he went there and saw two persons were catching hold of Shambhu RamAssistant Engineer Rural Works Department. Some money was in his hands. A search of Shambhu Ram was made. All the 41 notes of Rs.1,000/- denominations each i.e. Rs.41,000/were recovered. Thereafter, the Vigilance personnel brought out the paper and compared the number of the notes mentioned with the numbers in the G.C. notes memorandum and the same tallied. The other witness Anil Ranjan Bara also singed. After the hands of the Shambhu Ram were washed with the Sodium Carbonate Solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. Thereafter the Vigilance people also took the P.W.6 to Collectorate of Simdega. There the trap proceeding of Onkar Prasad Gupta Junior Engineer was made. When he reached the office of Onkar Prasad Gupta, he saw that two personnel of vigilance were catching hold of both his hands. His search was made and from the left pocket of his pant, Rs.1,00,000/consisting of 100 notes of Rs.1000/denomination each were recovered. The numbers were compared and the same tallied. The other witness Anil Ranjan Bara also signed. Both the hands of the Onkar Prasad Gupta
21
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
were washed with the Sodium Carbonate Solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. He further stated that he knew Onkar Prasad Gupta since one and a half years before the occurrence as he was residing at Ranchi in the same locality of the residence of P.W.6 and the witness Anil Ranjan Bara is an employee of Ekka Construction. In para-11 of his crossexamination, he has stated that he has not seen any conversation between the P.W.2 and the appellant-convicts nor he has seen the appellant-convicts demanding money or taking bribe. In para-15, he has stated that at the time of occurrence, Enos Ekka was the Minister of Rural Development and P.W.2 is his Sala (brother-in-law) by relationship.
It is pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no cross-examination of the P.W.6 in respect of his testimony in his examination in chief regarding the recovery of the tainted money from both the appellant-convicts from separate places or about the presence of the appellant-convict- Shambhu Ram and his being apprehended from the office of Ekka Construction. Thus the said portion of the testimony of the P.W.6 has remained unchallenged and is to be accepted.
22
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
23
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
on 10.03.2008, P.W.2 came to his house and threatened him and he sent a letter on 10.03.2008 to the department. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there is no entry made in the office of his visit to the site on 13.03.2008 and he did not make any complaint to police for the threatening given by the P.W.2 on 10.03.2008.
24 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
proper perspective and could not consider the fact that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the factum of demand of bribe by the appellant-convicts which is the essential ingredient to bring home the charges faced by the appellant-convicts in this case. It is next submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-convicts that the learned court below failed to take into consideration the material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that no verification was conducted by Anti-Corruption Bureau with respect to the genuineness and correctness of the complaint and with respect to demand of bribe money. It is further submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-convicts that the learned court below failed to take into consideration the defence of the appellant-convicts which shows that they were not present in the office on 13.03.2008 and in the departmental enquiry both the appellant-convicts were found innocent and were exonerated. It is next submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-convicts that the learned court below ought to have held that the witnesses examined by the prosecution were interested witnesses and except the P.W.2-complainant none of the witnesses have either heard the demand of bribe or giving and taking of bribe by P.W.2 to the appellant-convicts
25
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
at separate places of occurrence. It is next submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-convicts relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma reported in (2013) 14 SCC 153 , paragraph no.11 of which reads of under :-
“11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. (Vide Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab [(1972) 3 SCC 652 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 696 : AIR 1973 SC 498] , T. Subramanian v. State of T.N. [(2006) 1 SCC 401 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401] , State of Kerala v. C.P. Rao [(2011) 6 SCC 450 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1010 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 714] and Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan [(2012) 11 SCC 642 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1089 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 136] .)” (Emphasis supplied)
26
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
and submits that it is a settled principle of law that demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non for constituting the offence under the penal provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is then submitted that hence mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the appellant-convicts as the substantive evidence in this case is not reliable to show that the appellant-convicts have taken the money voluntarily as a bribe. Mr. Mazumdar, next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of V. Sejappa v. State reported in (2016) 12 SCC 150 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under in paragraph nos.16 and 24:-
“ 16. Viewed in the above background, coupled with absence of proof of demand, case of the prosecution and the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding acceptance of money calls for close scrutiny. On 17-12-1997, PW 1, Ramakrishnappa went to the office of the appellant accompanied by PW 2, Obaiah and the raiding party and PW 3, Srinivasa were waiting outside the office. PW 2 Obaiah was standing near the door of the chamber of the appellant and inside the room PW 1 had handed over the tainted currency to the appellant. On receiving the signal from PW 1, the raiding party and PW 3 entered into the office of the appellant and tainted currency notes were recovered from the appellant.
24. In the present case, the trial court recorded an order of acquittal on the evidence and circumstances:
(i) delay in lodging the complaint;
(ii) even though the appellant is alleged to have made the demand on 9-12-1997 at Chitradurga, absence of the appellant in Chitradurga from 7-12-1997 to 10-121997 and absence of proof of demand;
(iii) doubts raised regarding the submission of the documents, Exts. P-6 to P-15 by PW 1 for processing the pension papers and settling the retiral benefits; and
27
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
(iv) inconsistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in establishing the acceptance of the amount by the appellant.” (Emphasis supplied)
and submits that in this case the absence of appellantconvicts from Simdega on 13.03.2008 shows that the case of the prosecution about the verification of the complaint is doubtful. Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-convicts next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) thru. LR. v. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136 , paragraph no. 24 of which reads as under:-
“24. It would thus be patent from the materials on record that the evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification either of Rs 3000 which had been paid or of Rs 2000 as made on the day of trap operation is wholly inadequate to comply with the prerequisites to constitute the ingredients of the offence with which the original accused had been charged. Not only the date or time of first demand/payment is not forthcoming and the allegation to that effect is rather omnibus, vague and sweeping, even the person in whose presence Rs 3000 at the first instance is alleged to have been paid i.e. Santosh Singh Lambardar, has neither been produced in the investigation nor at the trial. In other words, the bald allegation of the complainant with regard to the demand and payment of Rs 3000 as well as the demand of Rs 2000 has remained uncorroborated. Further to reiterate, his statement to this effect lacks in material facts and particulars and per se cannot form the foundation of a decisive conclusion that such demand in fact had been made by the original accused. Viewed in this perspective, the statement of the complainant and the Inspector Satpal, the shadow witness in isolation that the original accused had enquired as to whether money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence levelled against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act.”
28
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
and submits that the evidence in the record is inadequate to bring home of the charges against the appellant-convicts. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr. reported in (2020)
9 SCC 636 , paragraph no.12 of which reads as under:-
“ 12. After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in para 38 as follows: (Radheshyam Kejriwal case [Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 721] , SCC p. 598)
“38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;
(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;
(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;
(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and
(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.”(Emphasis supplied)
29
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellantconvicts submits that since the appellant-convicts have been exonerated in the departmental proceeding, hence, they should be acquitted of the charges of this case also. It is lastly submitted Mr. Mazumdar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant-convicts that as the evidence in the record is inadequate, the appellant-convicts be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt.
30
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
answered to question no.5 in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in negative as both the appellant-convicts have denied the recovery of money from them. So they have absolutely no defence to put forth in respect of recovery of the tainted currency notes of the bribe amount from them, which fact has remained unchallenged in the cross-examination of the relevant prosecution witnesses and has been proved beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt. It is further submitted by Mrs. Sinha, that the defence evidence put forth regarding the absence of appellant-convicts on 13.03.2008 from Simdega and their presence at a distance of 45 kilometre but the charges in this case has been framed for the offences which occurred on 14.03.2008 and there is absolutely no evidence put forth by the defence to falsify the occurrence which took place on 14.03.2008. It is submitted by Mrs Sinha that the plea of the defence of the remaining absent from the headquarters of Simdega on 13.03.2008 to falsify the verification is also devoid of any merit because as admitted by the defence witnesses themselves; there is no entry in any of the register to show that the appellant-convicts had gone away from the headquarters on that day. Mrs Sinha further submitted that the contention of the defence that the complainant earlier threatened to falsely implicate them in a case is not trustworthy because had it been the fact, there is hardly any possibility of the appellant-convict- Shambhu Ram
31
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
visiting the office of the complainant on 14.03.2008 from where he was arrested after the successful trap and all the relevant prosecution witnesses have deposed about his presence in the office of the complainant and the said fact has not been challenged in their respective cross-examination of the witnesses. It is submitted that thus the defence evidence in this respect is of no help to the appellant-convicts to discard the prosecution evidence which has well proved the case of the prosecution beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt, as by such evidence all the ingredients of the offences, for which the appellant-convicts have been convicted have been vividly and eloquently stated by the prosecution witnesses. In respect of the contention of the defence, that no work of the complainant was pending with the appellant-convicts, it is submitted by Mrs Sinha that the recovery of the measurement book relating to the work of the complainant from the house of the appellant-convict Onkar Prasad Gupta as well as the contents thereof itself is sufficient enough to show that the work of the complainant was pending with the appellantconvicts on the date of the trap. It is then submitted that the besides the documents which have been exhibited during the trial of him being proved by the prosecution has also established that the work of the complainant was pending with the appellant-convict on the date of the occurrence. So far as the contention of the appellant-convicts regarding the
32
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
departmental proceeding is concerned, it is submitted by Mrs. Sinha that there is absolutely no evidence in the record to suggest as to in respect of which of the charges, the departmental proceedings were going on against the appellant-convicts and what are the facts in the said departmental proceedings. So there being absolutely no material in the record to come to a conclusion that for the same set of facts, as the facts of this case, the appellantconvicts faced the departmental proceeding, the Department proceeding, if any, against the appellant-convict is irrelevant for this case. It is next submitted that as both the appellantconvicts have themselves examined as defence witnesses, they could have easily proved the enquiry report if at all, they have been exonerated in a departmental proceeding for the same set of facts as of this case but having not done so, without any plausible reason, there is no material in the record to give them the benefit of doubt on the ground that they were exonerated in a departmental proceeding for the same set of facts as the facts of this case. Mrs. Sinha, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported in ( 2012) 9 SCC 685 , paragraph nos.15 and 25 of which reads as under:-
“ 15. Now we proceed to consider the question of law referred to us i.e. whether the prosecution against an accused, notwithstanding his exoneration on the identical charge in the departmental proceeding could continue or not?
33
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
25. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the exoneration in the departmental proceeding ipso facto would not result in the quashing of the criminal prosecution. We hasten to add, however, that if the prosecution against an accused is solely based on a finding in a proceeding and that finding is set aside by the superior authority in the hierarchy, the very foundation goes and the prosecution may be quashed. But that principle will not apply in the case of the departmental proceeding as the criminal trial and the departmental proceeding are held by two different entities. Further, they are not in the same hierarchy. (Emphasis supplied)
submits that as the said issue has been authoritatively decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as this criminal proceeding was not instituted on the basis of the findings of any departmental proceeding rather this case has been instituted on the basis of the trap and on the basis of the said trap subsequently departmental proceeding is claimed to have been initiated; though there is no document to that effect in the record, hence exoneration, if any, in the departmental proceeding is of no consequence so far this criminal prosecution is concerned. It is then submitted that otherwise also assuming for the sake of argument, though not admitting that the appellant-convicts have been exonerated in a departmental proceeding but ipso-facto that would not result in acquittal in this case. Mrs. Sinha then submitted that in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 paragraph 38 of which has been quoted in the judgment of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr. (Supra) relied upon by the appellant-convicts the othor proceeding then the criminal proceeding was not a departmental
34
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
proceeding rather the same was an adjudication proceeding by the Enforcement Directorate so otherwise also the said principle will not be applicable when the other proceeding is a departmental proceeding . Mrs Sinha next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2020) 2 SCC 88 , paragraph nos.13 and 14 of which reads as under:-
“ 13. Regarding the hand-wash, Nand Lal (PW 2) could not recollect full facts and had stated that as far as he could remember, the appellant had given his hand-wash and the polythene bag was also washed. Nand Lal (PW 2) had identified his signature on the bottles containing the wash of the polythene bag and also the signature on the papers prepared. Hemant Kumar (PW 3) had stated that the pant wash was not done. We would observe that ex facie the hand wash and the pant wash were not done as the coated money was put in the polythene bag. Polythene bag was washed and the wash kept in the bottles as has been deposed by Rohtash Singh (PW 5). Minor discrepancy and inability of Nand Lal (PW 2) and Hemant Kumar (PW 3) to remember the exact details of whether or not the handwash or pant wash was done would not justify acquittal of the appellant.
14. The contradictions that have crept in the testimonies of Nand Lal (PW 2) and Hemant Kumar (PW 3) noticed above and on the question of the total amount demanded or whether Nand Lal (PW 2) had earlier paid Rs 500 are immaterial and inconsequential as it is indisputable that the bribe was demanded and taken by the appellant on 3-8-1994 at about 10.30 a.m. The variations as highlighted lose significance in view of the proven facts on the recovery of bribe money from the pant pocket of the appellant, on which depositions of Nand Lal (PW 2), Hemant Kumar (PW 3) and Rohtash Singh (PW 5) are identical and not at variance. The money recovered was the currency notes that were treated and noted in the pre-raid proceedings vide Ext. PW 2/G. The aspect of demand and payment of the bribe has been examined and dealt with above. The contradictions as pointed out to us and noted are insignificant when juxtaposed with the vivid and eloquent narration of incriminating facts proved and established beyond doubt and debate. It would be
35
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
sound to be cognitive of the time gap between the date of occurrence, 3-8-1994, and the dates when the testimony of Nand Lal (PW 2) was recorded, 9-7-1999 and 14-9-1999, and that Hemant Kumar's (PW 3) testimony was recorded on 18-12-2000 and 30-1-2001. Given the time gap of five to six years, minor contradictions on some details are bound to occur and are natural. The witnesses are not required to recollect and narrate the entire version with photographic memory notwithstanding the hiatus and passage of time. Picayune variations do not in any way negate and contradict the main and core incriminatory evidence of the demand of bribe, reason why the bribe was demanded and the actual taking of the bribe that was paid, which are the ingredients of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, that as noticed above and hereinafter, have been proved and established beyond reasonable doubt. Documents prepared contemporaneously noticed above affirm the primary and ocular evidence. We, therefore, find no good ground and reason to upset and set aside the findings recorded by the trial court that have been upheld by the High Court. Relevant in this context would be to refer to the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh [State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh, (1984) 1 SCC 254 : 1984 SCC (Cri) 46] wherein it was held that in a case involving an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may be safe to accept the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the complainant and the official witnesses even if the trap witnesses turn hostile or are found not to be independent. When besides such evidence, there is circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in upholding the conviction.” (Emphasis supplied)
and submitted that keeping in view that the witnesses were examined long after the date of occurrence hence minor contradictions are but natural in the testimony and as undisputedly, the appellant-convicts have signed their arrest memo as well as the seizure lists coupled with the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses examined in the trial is sufficient to draw presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption
36
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
Act, 1988 that they received the amount as a motive or reward as mentioned in Section 7 of the said Act and as they failed to come forward with any defence regarding the reason for acceptance of the said tainted currency notes and thus the learned court below has rightly convicted them for the said offences. Mrs. Sinha, next relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P . reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691 , paragraph nos.14 and 15 of which reads as under:-
“14. When the sub-section deals with legal presumption it is to be understood as in terrorem i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act.
15. The word “proof” need be understood in the sense in which it is defined in the Evidence Act because proof depends upon the admissibility of evidence. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. This is the definition given for the word “proved” in the Evidence Act. What is required is production of such materials on which the court can reasonably act to reach the supposition that a fact exists. Proof of the fact depends upon the degree of probability of its having existed. The standard required for reaching the supposition is that of a prudent man acting in any important matter concerning him. Fletcher Moulton L.J. in Hawkins v. Powells Tillery Steam Coal Co.
37
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
Ltd. [(1911) 1 KB 988 : 1911 WN 53] observed like this:
“Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible; it must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a particular conclusion.”
and submits that proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration because that is impossible. It is further submitted that keeping in view the fact that the witnesses who were examined after a long time of about 5-11 years after the occurrence, as the first witness being the P.W.1 was examined on 17.07.2013 while the P.W.10 was examined on 03.06.2019 it is but natural that there will be some discrepancy in the testimonies of such witnesses and the contradictions cited by the appellant-convicts are so insignificant and puerile that the same will not entail the acquittal of the appellant-convicts. It is further submitted by Mrs. Sinha, that keeping in view huge amount of bribe taken by the appellant-convicts, the sentence imposed upon them is also proper. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial court having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellantconvicts, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 21. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that there is no dispute that it is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of the bribe money by itself cannot bring home the charge for the offences
38
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
punishable under section 7 or 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons of any case, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe on demand or to show that the accused voluntarily accepted the money, as has inter alia been held in the cases State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma (supra), V. Sejappa v. State (supra), Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. CBI (supra) . Now coming to the facts of the case, the shadow witness in the case namely Prabhu Dayal has died as is evident from Ext.20 which is the charge sheet of this case wherein, it has categorically been mentioned against his name that he is dead and the said fact is not in dispute. So this leaves the P.W.1 to be the only competent witness who has seen the demand of money, acceptance of money. As undisputedly, besides the P.W.2, there is ample evidence in the shape of testimonies of P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 regarding recovery of money. So far as the evidence of P.W.2 is concerned, there is absolutely no cross-examination of him on any material particulars regarding demand of money, acceptance of money or recovery of money from the appellant-convicts. Similarly, there is no cross-examination of P.Ws.1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 regarding their testimonies of recovery of the money from the appellant-convicts. There is absolutely no cross-examination of any of the witnesses of the
39 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
prosecution regarding the colour of the sodium carbonate solution turning pink upon the fingers of the appellantconvicts being washed with the solution and the denominations and number of the notes upon being compared with the notes recovered, the same were tallied. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, (1998) 1 SCC 557 that where one of the reasons which the learned Single Judge advanced for interfering with the conviction and sentence was that nobody overheard the demand made by the delinquent officer for bribe, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under in paragraph-14:
“14. The two remaining reasons, i.e., nobody overheard the demand made by the respondent for bribe and that the amount was found not in the right pocket but only in the left pocket, are flippant grounds which should never have merited consideration.Xxxxxxxxx” (Emphasis supplied)
wherein in the facts of that case where the
complainant’s evidence was jettisoned on the mere ground
that since he had a grouse against the delinquent public servant he might falsely have implicated the public servant, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that such a premise is fraught with the consequence that no bribe giver can get away from such stigma in any graft case and went on to say that the very fact that the complainant filed a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau is reflective of his grievance.
40
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
Such a handicap in his evidence may require the court to scrutinize it with greater care, but it does not call for outright rejection of his evidence at the threshold. In the case of Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in ( 1980) 2 SCC 390 which was referred to by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph no.10 of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah (supra) it was observed that every citizen of India must be presumed to be an independent person until it is proved that he was dependent on police or other officials for any purpose whatsoever. So in view of this backdrop, similarly because the P.W.2 is the cousin brother of the wife of MLA does not mean,
his testimony is to be discarded when nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony and as already indicated above there is absolutely no crossexamination of him regarding his testimony in his examination in chief wherein he has stated about the demand of bribe by both the appellant-convicts at separate places, payment of bribe amount of ₹ 41,000 and ₹ 1 lakh separately to the appellant-convicts as well as recovery of the said tainted bribe amount from the appellant-convicts.
41
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
most he can be treated as an interested witness and whether corroboration is necessary or not will be within the discretion of the court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala, (1995) 3 SCC 351 , paragraph- 22 of which inter alia reads as under:
“22. Xxxxxxxxx Therefore in seeking corroboration for the evidence of trap witnesses a distinction has to be drawn where participation of an individual in a crime is not voluntary but is the result of pressure. In such a case the element of mens rea to commit the crime is not apparent and (sic) cannot strictly be classified as an accomplice and at any rate he cannot be treated as being on the same footing. Where a bribe has already been demanded from a man and if without giving the bribe he goes to the police or magistrate and brings them to witness the payment it will be a legitimate trap and in such cases at the most he can be treated as an interested witness and whether corroboration is necessary or not will be within the discretion of the court depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However as a rule of prudence, the court has to scrutinise the evidence of such interested witnesses carefully.” (Emphasis supplied)
42
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
of the trap witnesses etc. and further reiterated the settled principle of law that as a rule of law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon and that in a case of bribe, the person who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe and it is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the payment of bribe; by observing thus in paragraph-23 of the said judgment which reads as under:
“23. Now coming to the nature of corroborating evidence that is required, it is well-settled that the corroborating evidence can be even by way of circumstantial evidence. No general rule can be laid down with respect to quantum of evidence corroborating the testimony of a trap witness which again would depend upon its own facts and circumstances like the nature of the crime, the character of trap witness etc. and other general requirements necessary to sustain the conviction in that case. The court should weigh the evidence and then see whether corroboration is necessary. Therefore as a rule of law it cannot be laid down that the evidence of every complainant in a bribery case should be corroborated in all material particulars and otherwise it cannot be acted upon. Whether corroboration is necessary and if so to what extent and what should be its nature depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a case of bribe, the person who pays the bribe and those who act as intermediaries are the only persons who can ordinarily be expected to give evidence about the bribe and it is not possible to get absolutely independent evidence about the payment of bribe. However, it is cautioned that the evidence of a bribe-giver has to be scrutinised very carefully and it is for the court to consider and appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and decide
43
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
the question whether a conviction can be based upon it or not in those given circumstances.” (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover it is a fact that in these days, civilised people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 357 , observed as under in this respect in paragraph-29:
“29. As far as the non-examination of any other independent witness is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness. But, the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this ground alone. In these days, civilised people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the court as they find it distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this handicap of the investigating agency in discharging their duty. We cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness as long as the evidence of the eyewitness, though interested, is trustworthy.” (Emphasis supplied)
Krishna Murthy (2000) 9 SCC 752 wherein it was held that when an amount is found to have been passed to the public servant; the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the judgment in the case of B. Noha v. State of Kerala , reported in (2006) 12 SCC 277 reads as under:
44
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
“ 10. The evidence shows that when PW 1 told the accused that he had brought the money as directed by the accused, the accused asked PW 1 to take a cut and give the same to him. When it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive. It has only to be deduced from the facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case. It was held by this Court in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra as follows: (SCC p. 577, para 12)
“12. The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted ‘as motive or reward’ for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word ‘gratification’ need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the that there was factual premise payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like ‘gratification or any valuable thing’. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word ‘gratification’ must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it.”
11. This decision was followed by this Court in M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. There is no case of the accused that the said amount was received by him as the amount which he was legally entitled to receive or collect from PW 1. It was held in the decision in State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy that when an amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. That burden was not discharged by the accused.” (Emphasis supplied)
45
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
Tehsil premises in a Jeep and waited near the tea stall for a signal and on receiving the signal they reached there and on personal search currency notes of Rs. 150/- were recovered from the person of the appellant and on these facts the appellant was prosecuted and was convicted and sentenced and the facts were not disputed, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India observed as under in paragraph 6:
6 . Xxxxxxxxx In fact where the receipt of the amount and its recovery is not disputed it is not necessary for us to go through the evidence and examine it afresh, although learned Counsel went through the evidence in detail. The only question is as to whether the Courts below were right in rejecting the explanation of the appellant for receipt of Rs. 150/-. The explanation given by the appellant which was seriously pressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that he had received this amount to be deposited in the small savings scheme on behalf of Gian Singh but it is significant that neither he had made any note of this fact nor given any receipt to Gian Singh. Apart from it is significant that the Sub-Divisional Officer who was a revenue officer and the appellant being a Patwari was his subordinate. The normal conduct of the appellant would have been to tell him as soon as he arrived for search that in fact he had received this amount to be deposited in the small savings scheme. It is impossible to believe that if the appellant had received this amount for being deposited in the small savings scheme he would have not opened his mouth and permitted the search and recovery of this amount from his pocket to be done by the Sub-Divisional Officer and allowed the matter to be handed over to the Police and still would not have come out to say what he chose to say at the trial. This conduct of the appellant in not coming out with this explanation instantaneously goes a long way to make this explanation just an afterthought specially when SubDivisional Officer conducted the search and recovered this amount from his person. In this view of the matter therefore in our opinion both the Courts below were right in discarding this explanation of the appellant. We
46
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
therefore see no substance in this contention advanced on behalf of the appellant. (Emphasis supplied)
“11. Xxxxx Since it is established that the accused was possessing the bribe money, it was for them to explain that how the bribe money has been received by them and if he fails to offer any satisfactory explanation, it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe.”
“1. This is a petition filed by Respondent 1-Accused 2 to modify the judgment dated 17-7-2018 in State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi1 . In para 3 of the judgment, Respondent 1-Accused 2 has been stated to be the government servant, which is not factually correct. Though, Respondent 1-Accused 2 is not a government servant, bribe amount in currency notes of Rs 500 were recovered from him only; there were signs of anthracene powder noticed from the shirt pocket of Respondent 1-Accused 2. Considering the fact that currency notes were recovered form Respondent 1- Accused 2, in our view, the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are established. The conviction of Respondent 1-Accused 2 under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is modified as the
47
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
conviction under Section 8 of the said Act, and the sentence of one year imposed is reduced to six months. 2. The judgment shall be modified accordingly.”
but reiteration of the said principle has remained intact even after the said modification.
48
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
place on 14.03.2008. So the presence of the appellant-convicts at a distance of 45 km from Simdega on 13.03.2008 is of not much significance so far as the charges involved in this case are concerned. Hence, the said the defence evidence is of no help to the appellant-convicts.
49
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
of Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors. reported in AIR 2013 (SC) 1204 in para-31 in this respect held as under :-
“31. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to crossexamine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See: Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 226 : (1993 AIR SCW 3675); State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1328 : (1998 AIR SCW
50
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
1200); Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.), AIR 2001 SC 3207 : (2001 AIR SCW 3042); and Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 1096) : (2005 AIR SCW 589).” (Emphasis supplied)
(i) Demand of Bribe.
(ii) Acceptance of Bribe.
(iii) and Recovery of Bribe amount.
It is needless to mention that in this case the
appellant-convicts denied the receipt of money from the complainant by them on the date of occurrence being 14.03.2008 hence the question of explanation envisaged under
51
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to satisfactorily explain the receipt of money for any purpose other than motive or reward does not arise.
Thus the appellant-convicts having being rightly convicted for the offence under the said Act, the conviction of the appellant-convicts as made by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment is upheld.
“30. Xxxxxxxxxxx It should be paramountly borne in mind that corruption at any level does not deserve either sympathy or leniency. In fact, reduction of the sentence would be adding a premium. The law does not so countenance and, rightly so, because corruption corrodes the spine of a nation and in the ultimate eventuality makes the economy sterile .”
52 Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.280 of 2020
With Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.294 of 2020
law discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the conviction and sentence of the appellant-convicts are proper accordingly the same are confirmed.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 22nd September, 2021 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-
3 issues framed by the court
Did the prosecution establish demand, acceptance and recovery of bribes beyond reasonable doubt?
Could the complainant's testimony sustain conviction without independent eyewitness corroboration of demand and acceptance?
Did the convictions and sentences warrant interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal VermaRelied on¶213
(2013) 14 SCC 153 · Who else cites this
V. Sejappa v. StateRelied on¶213
(2016) 12 SCC 150 · Who else cites this
Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) thru. LR. v. State of PunjabRelied on¶213
(2017) 8 SCC 136 · Who else cites this
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr.Relied on¶213
Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Anr.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar TyagiReferred¶178
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ajay Kumar Tyagi
Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B.Referred¶185
Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., (2011) 3 SCC 581 · Who else cites this
Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)Applied¶279
(2020) 2 SCC 88 · Who else cites this
M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.PReferred¶200
(2001) 1 SCC 691 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. v. ZakaullahApplied¶216
State of U.P. v. Zakaullah, (1998) 1 SCC 557 · Who else cites this
Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration)Relied on¶225
Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration)
M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of KeralaApplied¶231
M.O. Shamsudhin v. State of Kerala, (1995) 3 SCC 351 · Who else cites this
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.Relied on¶242
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna MurthyRelied on¶245
(2000) 9 SCC 752 · Who else cites this
B. Noha v. State of KeralaRelied on¶245
(2006) 12 SCC 277 · Who else cites this
Tarsem Lal v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶253
Tarsem Lal v. State of Haryana (AIR 1987 SC 806) · Who else cites this
State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi & Ors.Relied on¶265
State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi & Ors., (2018) 9 SCC 242 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 730 · Who else cites this
State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant JoshiExplained¶267
State of Gujarat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi, (2019) 13 SCC 361 · Who else cites this
Laxmibai (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Ors.Applied¶285
AIR 2013 (SC) 1204 · Who else cites this
Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of GujaratRelied on¶303
Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat, (2012) 7 SCC 80 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Shambhu Ram
The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau (Vigilance).
Onkar Prasad Gupta
The State of Jharkhand through Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ranchi (Jharkhand)
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
